Abortion Commentary

[BIGUN 1,071]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The anti-abortion position is adverse to over half of humanity and based on religious views shared by a minority.

Well, 84% of the world view is not a minority.

But, let's stick with the science for awhile. It sounds like you're not good with the 12th week either. At 13 weeks, the fetus's organs, including the liver and pancreas, are starting to function, and the fetus can move its arms and legs, suck its thumb, and form a fist. The fetus's bones are also beginning to harden, especially in the skull and long bones.

So, you good with drawing the line in the sand at week 13?

[kallend 1,648]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

I disagree with his position, and think that it should always be up to the woman and their doctor.

But I seem to recall you supporting Roe v Wade, which explicitly allows states to ban abortions in the last trimester, even in cases of rape or incest.  Indeed, you were very vocal about your displeasure when it was overturned.

So YOU supported a ruling that can force a 10 year old child to go through a pregnancy and labor and give birth to her rapists child.  Is that because you want to force 10 year olds to give birth?  That's really your line in the sand?

Or is more that you sometimes support things that, in most cases, are good enough?  If so, you don't have much standing to criticize others for doing the same.

I supported Roe v Wade over the current alternative, so don't create a strawman.

I have made it very clear that until the woman "delivers" a baby to society, what goes on in her body is not the government's business.  

[BIGUN 1,071]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

I have made it very clear that until the woman "delivers" a baby to society, what goes on in her body is not the government's business. 

OK, so it sounds like we've fast forwarded the science of it. You good with abortion the day before the baby's "delivery" date?

[kallend 1,648]

Just now, BIGUN said:

OK, so it sounds like we've fast forwarded the science of it. You good with abortion the day before the baby's "delivery" date?

I'm good with it not being my, your, or the government's, business. 

[jakee 1,259]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

So, you good with drawing the line in the sand at week 13?

What’s the point of having any line that can still be crossed for a multitude of reasons?

Edited April 29 by jakee

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

6 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

OK, so it sounds like we've fast forwarded the science of it. You good with abortion the day before the baby's "delivery" date?

No.

 

You keep wanting to define when the fetus is 'alive'.

Well, the sperm cells are alive before fertilization and conception. I'll guess you don't want to go back that far.

In ancient times, a baby was considered in various situations after 'quickening'. That is, once it started to move in the womb. There were legal ramifications after that.
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening
That's typically around 20 weeks, roughly halfway.

Ironically, modern medicine can keep a premature baby alive from about the same time.

I'd be mostly comfortable with free access to abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb.
After that, for the health of the mother.

Which, despite what all the self righteous morons claim, is how it's been. 

The idea that people are aborting viable fetuses for 'birth control' is ludicrous. 
And a lie.

[JoeWeber 2,326]

24 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Well, 84% of the world view is not a minority.

But, let's stick with the science for awhile. It sounds like you're not good with the 12th week either. At 13 weeks, the fetus's organs, including the liver and pancreas, are starting to function, and the fetus can move its arms and legs, suck its thumb, and form a fist. The fetus's bones are also beginning to harden, especially in the skull and long bones.

So, you good with drawing the line in the sand at week 13?

Locally, it's Christians who are causing the troubles. In India the Hindi position was aborted in 1971 and there are basically no limits, Jews don't seem to care, Muslims are mostly focused on ensoulment at 4 months, not much news from the unaffiliated. 

[tkhayes 140]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

OK. So, let's say you want to encompass all of these factors which is the embryonic stage which generally runs from the 5th to 10th week. So, all of these organs + heartbeat = life.  You good with that?

no I am not good with that.  It is still a lump of useless cells that serves no purpose and it not even remotely close to being a 'baby' or even a 'life'

My stance has NOTHING to do with whether or not there is a life, if it is alive, if it is a person, if it has a heartbeat, or anything else biologically or ethically about that thumbnail sized petri dish clump of cells.

Let's ask again - are YOU good with women having (or should having) bodily autonomy or equal rights that men enjoy?  Are you willing to say that under the law, women should NOT have rights to their body?  Which is the effective result of any anti-abortion legislation.

what say you?  Not interested in discussing when life begins as I do not consider it relevant.  Do you consider women's rights to be relevant?

Edited April 29 by tkhayes
hit enter too soon

[tkhayes 140]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

OK, so it sounds like we've fast forwarded the science of it. You good with abortion the day before the baby's "delivery" date?

if only that was actually a thing.  I am not interested in enacting legislation that affects people's rights based on what some extremist thinks might happen.

Are you in favor of basing policy in what is ACTUAL instead of what is dreamt up?

again, gun legislation example.... what if I argued that, "well arguably ANY gun could, in time, kill EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the country, and therefore we should have no guns." 

Does not sound reasonable does it?  So if you want to discuss facts, let's discuss them.

[billvon 2,434]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

OK, so it sounds like we've fast forwarded the science of it. You good with abortion the day before the baby's "delivery" date?

Personally I'm not good with abortion AT ALL.  It is usually the worst option after an unexpected pregnancy, and you're absolutely killing a potential human being.  Yes, even in cases of rape.

I just don't think it's my decision to make - a man who will never carry a baby, and who doesn't understand what's going on in that person's life.  And it is DEFINITELY not a decision for a politician.

[wmw999 2,148]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

In ancient times, a baby was considered in various situations after 'quickening'. That is, once it started to move in the womb. There were legal ramifications after that.
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening
That's typically around 20 weeks, roughly halfway.

Ironically, modern medicine can keep a premature baby alive from about the same time.

I'd be mostly comfortable with free access to abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb.
After that, for the health of the mother.

Which, despite what all the self righteous morons claim, is how it's been. 

The idea that people are aborting viable fetuses for 'birth control' is ludicrous. 
And a lie.

While there are a small minority of people who do in fact abort for birth control, they are mostly rich here in the US, and laws don’t do much to stop rich people. Poorer people seeking abortions tend to have had birth control failure, serious health issues in the mother or baby, or a drastic change in circumstances (eg gig-employed man leaves or dies unexpectedly). 
Yes, others’ determination of what’s critical may vary from mine, but so do their circumstances. 
I pretty much agree down the line with what Joe said about timing. As the only card-carrying woman who posts here any more, you’re just going to take it as at least one woman’s view

Abortion is also a personal matter. Kind of like why someone let their child get a nose job  

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,326]

16 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

As the only card-carrying woman who posts here any more,

Is it a library card? I was wondering where we went wrong.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

On 4/26/2024 at 12:03 PM, BIGUN said:

Slander

Pedantic: libel.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

OK, so it sounds like we've fast forwarded the science of it. You good with abortion the day before the baby's "delivery" date?

As much as you are good with killing innocent people through the death penalty I guess.

In the end these late term abortions are rare. Why do you feel the need to legislate for it?

[BIGUN 1,071]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

As much as you are good with killing innocent people through the death penalty I guess.

Nope. Been very vocal about being opposed to the death penalty (in here and on the streets).

[BIGUN 1,071]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Personally I'm not good with abortion AT ALL.  It is usually the worst option after an unexpected pregnancy, and you're absolutely killing a potential human being.  Yes, even in cases of rape.

I just don't think it's my decision to make - a man who will never carry a baby, and who doesn't understand what's going on in that person's life.  And it is DEFINITELY not a decision for a politician.

You & I disagree on the rape part, but we can disagree as gentlemen.  

[BIGUN 1,071]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

I'm good with it not being my, your, or the government's, business. 

OK. Let's use TK's argument. Why are guns my, your or the government's business? Because they kill. 

[SkyDekker 1,145]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

OK. Let's use TK's argument. Why are guns my, your or the government's business? Because they kill. 

And they aren't a medical procedure.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Nope. Been very vocal about being opposed to the death penalty (in here and on the streets).

Fair enough, still leaves why you would want to legislate something that is very rare.

[BIGUN 1,071]

27 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

And they aren't a medical procedure.

Depends on if you're trying to remove an asshole. 

[SkyDekker 1,145]

6 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Depends on if you're trying to remove an asshole. 

Is that trass in stead of trans?

[BIGUN 1,071]

27 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Fair enough, still leaves why you would want to legislate something that is very rare.

In short, I was playing along with the beat me up game and turning the tables a bit to find the "icky" part.  My position still remains the same and I do wish that RvW had not been revoked - because I do believe in the end, the women have a lot more to consider in their personal situation about the issue than men. Cause, ya know - not all men can be trusted to do the right thing. 

[JoeWeber 2,326]

36 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Cause, ya know - not all men can be trusted to do the right thing.

You mean, for example, banning abortions after a "fetal heartbeat" standard? Or negotiating with other men another but more middle ground standard? But in every case taking a degree of autonomy from a women to make their own health care decisions in accordance with their own beliefs? Yes, that would be icky, for sure.

[tkhayes 140]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

OK. Let's use TK's argument. Why are guns my, your or the government's business? Because they kill. 

well they do not just 'kill' - but of course, along with the other distractions like 'when a heartbeat starts', the gun lobby digresses to mass shootings exclusively, or what statistic they can grab on to at that moment to make their point.

Guns are not just responsible for death, but violent crimes, injuries, tens of billions in health care costs every year, not to mention the cost of the criminal justice system to support all the carnage in the name of rights.

Kinda like me supporting what pro-lifers would call carnage when talking about abortion

I am not anti gun, I own 20, but this country (for a bunch of people that claim to care about life) has the stupidest gun laws in the world, and as a result are tacitly responsible for the gun violence we see.  SO I sarcastically point that out at every opportunity.  Far too many Americans are pro-gun and anti-abortion..... it simply makes no sense.

Tying 'pro-life' between guns and abortion, I have no issue, I do not care about the life of a 20 week fetus, if it is the mother's decision to abort, but I also am pro-gun-regs because I DO in fact care about the lives of things that we actually call 'people' and not fetus' or zygotes. 

[tkhayes 140]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

OK. Let's use TK's argument. Why are guns my, your or the government's business? Because they kill. 

Let's ADDRESS TK's arguments.... I am still waiting.  Are you OK with women having fewer rights than men and writing that into law?  Oversimplification, but I have stated it a few ways several times.

Address that.